chalk VS rust

The Rust compiler uses a Prolog-like query language internally for type checking generic requirements and traits: https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk

rust-analyzer already uses chalk (https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk) which should replace the current trait resolver.

Well it's quite easy to come to that conclusion: The code compiles with rustc, which is currently the reference implementation. If rust-analyzer does not match rustc's behavior it's an issue in their implementation. That written it's not that easy to fix as it's related to how rust-analyzer resolves types/traits. rust-analyzer uses chalk for this, which is known to be incomplete/diverging from the RFC'ed behavior. Now one could argue that we can simplify diesel to the point where it works will with rust-analyzer/chalk, but that would result in basically removing core diesel features that exist way longer than rust-analyzer.

> Not all of those things work well in the real world. E.g. logic programming (prolog) is cool but ultimately never really caught on.

It does have its niches though. For example, there is a trait solver for Rust called Chalk that uses a Prolog-inspired language because trait bounds basically define a logic:

https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk

Maybe something in the prolog/datalog direction could be useful? Notably Rust has Chalk to help with trait resolution ("Chalk is a library that implements the Rust trait system, based on Prolog-ish logic rules.")

There has been work to implement part of the Rust typing logic in the Chalk Engine which uses a prolog-ish syntax to describe its rules.

That's something Chalk is trying to tackle.

We probably will see all of them at some point -- polonius is a current effort to make the borrow checker accept more valid programs, in a way that also simplifies the logic and is probably a bit faster than the current NLL system, chalk is an attempt to do a similar thing for the trait system, and cranelift is a project that seeks to replace the LLVM codegen backend. But obviously, these are very large and complex projects that are gonna take some time.

Do Rust developers realize that? Oh, yes, absolutely, that's why we have this:

For me an attempt to write where HashMap: FromIterator and then use new and insert was totally bizzare because currently rustc is pretty primitive and doesn't do super-complex machinery needed to do what you want. Chalk may fix that one day, but it's nowhere near to being ready for inclusion into rustc thus I wouldn't even attempt to do what you tried to do… but that's not something you are supposed to know before reading this book!

> There are online Rust compilers and interpreters already if you just want to rapid prototype and develop ideas in Rust

You are responding to one of the key developers of Rust early on[1], who's been working with the language for 14 years at that point.

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/graphs/contributors?from=2... and he's still #16 in commits overall today, despite almost no activity on the rust compiler since 2014.

If you haven't dipped your touch-typing fingers into Rust yet, you really owe it to yourself. Rust is a modern programming language with features that make it suitable not only for systems programming -- its original purpose, but just about any other environment, too; there are frameworks that let your build web services, web applications including user interfaces, software for embedded devices, machine learning solutions, and of course, command-line tools. Since a custom GitHub Action is essentially a command-line tool that interacts with the system through files and environment variables, Rust is perfectly suited for that as well.

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.